Hi Ed,
What I am claiming is that there may be three types of times --
'real',
'physical', and
'formal'
that are mutually connected through ITR (irreducible triadic relation).
As an example of 'formal time', also called 'reversible time', I cited the
time appearing in Newton's second law of motion, F = md^2s/dt^2, which is
invariant with respect to time reversal, i.e., F does not change when t is
replaced by -t. You objected that I used the wrongly interpreted version
of the Newton's second law, and, if I used your version of the law, my
argument would not hold, since then F would not be time-reversal
invariant. I accept that, but this would not affect my argument, since I
am sure there are other physical laws, if not Newton's second law, that
would exhibit the time-reversal invariance, thus supporting the concept of
'formal time' in contrast to 'physical time' which is always irreversible.
Your version of Newton's second law may contain absolute and formal times,
but not physical time, while Peircean triadic metaphysics (as I understand
it) would predict absolute (or 'real' as I call it), physical, and formal
times.
All the best.
Sung
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ed Dellian ed.dell...@t-online.de wrote:
Dear Sung,
my impression is that you're conflating Newton's irreversible geometric
law of motion impressed force is proportional to change in motion with
Leonhard Euler's reversible formula, the analytical arithmetic-algebraic
force equals mass-acceleration law (for the first discovery of this law
in Berlin on Sept. 3, 1750 see L. Euler, Découverte d'un nouveau principe
de Mécanique, Mem. Acad. Roy. Sci. Berlin, vol. 6 , 1750 (1752), pp.
185-217). In order to avoid such a conflation, please note (1) that to be
proportional is not the same as to be equal, (2) that a finite change
in motion is not the same as a continuous acceleration. Wouldn't you
admit, then, that an irreversible second law of Newton should make some
difference for your line of resoning? As I said it before: It makes no
sense to proceed with your studies on the presupposition of
misinterpretations. And, a misinterpretation remains a misinterpretation,
no matter for how many years or centuries how many scientists, including
big shots and Nobel prize winners, have believed in it.
Let me, by the way, declare here that I do not interprete Newton, nor do
I propose my personal theory of motion, rather I do what many other
scientists most regrettably have refused and still are refusing to do,
namely, *read Newton's laws and take the author at his words* (maybe
because they do not read Latin). Moreover, it is not my point here to say
that Newton's authentic laws *are true* with respect to nature, rather I
ask you to admit: Whether or not these laws are true *can only be decided
on the basis of what Newton has actually written. *Finally, I think that
Newton, as a colleague, simply deserves that you quote him correctly.
Best wishes,
Ed.
Am 28.07.2015 um 21:49 schrieb Sungchul Ji:
Hi,
I am wondering if time is irreducibly triadic in the following three
senses:
(*1*) As a Peircean sign, i.e., time as a name or a representamen
referring to a process and interpreted by a mind as such:
fg
Process --- Time as a name --- Time as theorized
(object) (representamen) (interpretant)
|
^
|
|
||
h
Figure 1. Time as an irreducible triadic sign. As always, the arrows
can be read as determines or constrains in a broadest sense. f =
encoding; g = decoding; h = grounding, correspondence or information flow
(*2*) As a mechanism or a process:
f g
Past --- Present --- Future
| ^
| |
|__|
h
Figure 2. Time as an irreducible triadic process. f = natural
law-governed; g = natural law- and human intention-governed; h =
information flow
(*3*) Figure 1 seems to reflect the formal aspect of time (or 'formal
time'), while Figure 2 reflects the material/physical aspect of time (or
'physical time'). These two types of times together may constitute the
'real time', suggesting the following triadic diagram:
f g
Real Time --- Physical Time --- Formal Time
|
^
|
|
||
h
Figure 3. The postulate that there are three irreducible aspects to
time. f = natural process; g = mental process; h = information flow, or
